testified she thought that's something we should have done. under hhs, you recommend -- or the hhs recommends that for software development, that they should have independent verification program. it wasn't used in this case. can you share with us in the time that's gone why we didn't use iv&v? >> again, i don't think that's accurate, sir. at every point along the way, there's independent testing. >> independent? >> yes. >> not someone within your staff. >> pardon me? there's a level of company self-attested testing. there's a level of cms testing. then there's an independent test on each piece of the contracting. independent, not cms. >> gentleman's time -- >> it needs to be done independently. people -- >> h-- has expired. >> i'll get you the information.

but there are three levels of testing. one of them is independent for every piece of this contracting, yes. >> mrs. castor. >> good morning. when open enrollment began a few weeks ago, the people back home in florida who are helping their neighbors sort through the new options for coverage, the navigators, were taken aback by how grateful people are to have a new pathway to the doctor's office and the care they need. affordable options. they're no longer being discriminated against because they had cancer and diabetes or asthma. and they're very grateful. they said to me directly, it's like they found water in the desert. right now they are -- surprisingly, they said it's taking time because people want to sort through all of these options before they finally sign up at the end of the 26-week enrollment period.

so we must fix the marketplace. we must to meet their expectations. and we have very high expectations for you and for the administration. but i think it's important to point out the affordable care act is more than just a website. despite all the obstruction by republicans in my home state of florida, nationally, even going so far as to shut down the government, millions of americans are already benefitting, and they're benefits that are not tied to healthcare.gov. so madam secretary, let's clarify what's working despite healthcare.gov. is it correct to say that many of the improvements that the aca makes to employer coverage and to medicare where the vast majority of americans receive their coverage are not dependent on healthcare.gov? >> that's correct. >> so the delays and problems with healthcare.gov do not affect the millions of individuals thanks to the aca who no longer have to worry about lifetime monetary caps on their coverage that previously seventh them to bankruptcy?

>> that's absolutely true. i think the quote that the president was quoted recently saying, if you have health care, you can -- you don't have to sign up for the new marketplace, was referring to the large portion, the 95% of insured americans whose plans are solid, stay in place, and move forward. >> i understand the frustration with the website. what i don't understand is why people are not similarly outraged by the lack of medicaid coverage in many of our states. do you find that hypocritical? >> well, i think it's very troubling that millions of low-income working americans will still have no affordable option if states don't take advantage of the expansion program, leaving states bearing the cost of uncompensated care, families bearing the cost of parents who can't take care of their kids, workers not able to go to work and people still accessing care through emergency room doors, the least effective

kind of care they could get. >> mr. gardner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, secretary sebelius for being here. here's my letter. this is the letter that my family got cancelling our insurance. we chose to have our own private policy back in colorado so we could be in the same boat as every one of my constituents. yet, my insurance policy has been canceled. the white house website says, if you like your health plan you have, you can keep it. did i hear it wrong? >> again, sir, i don't know how long you've had your policy or -- >> why aren't you losing your insurance? >> pardon me? >> why aren't you losing your health insurance? >> because i'm part of the federal employees -- >> why aren't you in the exchange? you're in charge of this law, correct? why aren't you in the exchange? >> because i'm part of the federal employee health benefits plan. >> why won't you go into the exchange? you're part of this law. you're literally in charge of this law. should you be any different than all of the other americans out there who are losing their health insurance today? >> i'm part of the 95% with

affordable, available health coverage as are most of your colleagues. >> most americans -- it isn't available to them. why will you not agree? -- >> i'm not eligible for the exchange because i have coverage in -- >> you could decide to drop your coverage of your employer. you have the choice to decide not to choose -- >> that is not true, sir. >> i chose not to go -- >> members of congress are now part of the exchange thanks to an amendment added by congress -- >> with all due respect -- >> if i have affordable coverage in my workplace, i'm not eligible to go into the marketplace. that's part of the law. >> i would encourage you to be just like the american people and enter the exchange and agree to find a way to do that. >> it's illegal. >> i would like to show you an advertisement going on in colorado right now. this is an advertisement that a board member of the colorado exchange has put forward. do you agree with this kind of advertising for obama care? >> i can't see it. again -- >> it's a college student doing

a keg stand. >> if the colorado exchange did that, they're a state-based marketplace. >> do you aprof of this kind of advertising? >> i don't see it. i don't know what it is. i did not approve it. this is a state-based marketplace. >> that's pretty big font. that's a big picture of a keg. you can't see it? >> do i arove of it? i've never seen it. >> you have the ability to opt out, by the way, as a federal employee. i encourage you to make that decision. >> if i have available employer based coverage -- >> i would like to submit a waiver for the fourth congressional district. >> gentleman's time has expired. >> does your policy cover -- never mind. >> mr. mathison. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, thanks for your time. i just want to ask on the issue of the fixes to healthcare.gov, we've had a lot of conversation about that today. we've talked about confidence levels for being ready by a certain time. i think one question a lot of us have is, can you define what the

magnitude of the problem is? is there a scale or metric by which we can understand how bad this is today and how we're going to get to where we go to have it fixed? >> well, again, sir, i've been informed that the problems are in -- the reports i've seen are in two areas. they are in the performance area, which is speed and reliability. it's too slow. it doesn't have reliable transfers. and in functionality. there are parts of the system that just don't make accurate transfers. so we have done an extensive assessment. they are prioritized, as i indicated earlier. one of the priorities is the enrollment features, which pass individual information to the companies where they want to enroll. that is not reliable at this point. the companies are not getting accurate data. so it's an example of the kind of thing we know we need to fix. >> is there a way to -- have you set up your metrics to figure

out if we're making progress in terms if you're fixing those issues with speed and performance and functionality? >> again, with the team, there are definitely a comprehensive set of issues going forward that will be measured and accelerated. >> do you have target dates along the way if you want to meet the november 30th time to assume it's functional at what you want? do you have target or metrics along the way to make sure you're on that path? >> my understanding is, yes, there are groups of targets. fixes, as you know, can be loaded together. it isn't one at a time. so they don't take days, but they're trying to determine with a specific path. it's one of the charges qssi has. really looking at the umbrella of what needs to be fixed, prioritizing them, figuring out what destabilizes if something

else is fixed, how they can be grouped together. that report will be in later next week. >> okay. >> gentleman's time has expired. mr. pompeo. >> great. thank you, thank you for coming. i'd like to talk about kansas a little bit today. much like with some of my colleagues have made references to the wizard of oz. i don't think anyone from kansas should be able to do that. those folks worked hard to go down that yellow brick road. at the end of the day when they got there and pulled back the curtain, they found there was nothing they didn't already have. as we pull back the curtain on the affordable care act, i think people are finding it isn't something they've worked so hard to find. if you like your plan, you can keep it. i have a letter i'll submit for the record from someone in kansas. he got the following letter from blue cross blue shield that says because your current plan does not offer the benefit standards specified, you'll be discontinued on december 31st. then good news.

there's a group of folks. pizza hut, you know the company from kansas. lots of those folks have taken employees, families who were working there and have gone from having full-time jobs to part-time jobs. so they aren't able to keep the health care plan they had either and the one that they wanted. what do you tell -- why were the plans these folks had good enough when you were kansas' governor, but those plans today aren't good enough for those hard-working kansas families? >> sir, i would tell you in the roles i had the honor of serving of in kansas, i worked every day to try and eliminate some of the discriminatory features of the insurance industry that finally with the affordable care act are gone. my successor and elected insurance republican commissioner, sandy prager, and i worked on a whole series of plans to expand coverage. i did work on these issues.

we were not able to necessarily -- >> so you thought -- to use your words, i think you said lousy plans. ms. tavenner said not true insurance. you think the plans that were offered when you were the insurance commissioner weren't true insurance? >> in the individual market, the insurance commissioner in kansas and virtually every place in the country does not have -- >> no, it's a yes or no question. were they true insurance plans when you were -- >> a lot of them are not true insurance plans, no. >> thank you. i yield back. >> gentleman from vermont. >> thank you. i'm going to try to summarize quickly what i've been hearing. number one, the website must be fixed. you've been very forthright and you're going to fix it. number two, i'm hearing a tone change. we've had a real battle about health care. we had a battle in this congress. it was passed. the president signed it. the supreme court affirmed it. a really brutal battle. there was an election where the american people affirmed it. then the last gasp effort was the shutdown and threat of debt default. what i'm hearing today is that

there are problems and people want to fix them because all of us represent people who are going to win or lose depending on how effectively this is rolled out. third, there's some significant question about existing insurance policies, what the president said, and so on. let's acknowledge something. a lot of insurance companies were ripping off innocent american people by promising them insurance until they got sick. then it got canceled because they, quote, had a pre-existing condition that wasn't, quote, disclosed. that's got to end. the challenge for us going forward is to make health care affordable. madam secretary, my question is, is there any indication there's been a slowing of premium increases as a result of the affordable care act? because unless we can keep those premium increases down, they can't rise faster than the raise of inflation, wages, and profits, all of us are going to lose. >> well, i would say the trends

in the private market over the last 3 1/2 years are that cost increases have slowed down, are rising at a lower rate than the decades before. in fact, in this individual market, the old individual market, the typical increase was 16% year in and year out, rate increase. often that, came with additional medical underwriting. it gives you a sense of how the costs were. we know that medicare costs are down. we know medicaid costs actually had a decrease per capita last year, not an increase per capita, and underlying health care costs are down. these rates in the new marketplace have come in about 16% lower on average than was projected. not by us, but by the congressional budget office. we know in many of these marketsings, they're much more competitive. i believe in market competitiveness. that drives down rates. the states where the most

companies are participating have the lowest rates. new companies have come in significantly below the old monopoly companies that often dominated this individual marketplace. so we're on a pathway. are we there? no, but you're absolutely right. affordable coverage at the end at day is the goal. >> i yield back. thank you. >> madam secretary, i'm trying to make sure you're out of here by 12:30 before we start the second round of questions. mr. kissinger. >> that was a joke, right? >> i see sheer panic. thank you for being here. you stated earlier to mr. harper you give the president regular updates on the marketplace. the president stated he knew nothing about the status and functionality of the marketplace. how often and what were the subjects of those updates? >> well, i think there were a series of regular meetings with the president, with some of our federal partners, with offices of the white house from the omb

to others on a monthly basis, giving reports on policy and where we were going. none of those, i would say, involve detailed operational discussions. that wasn't the level. it was, are we coming together, do we have companies, do we have plans. >> sure. i understand that. obviously, when it comes to the president of the united states, certain level of details you have to see at the 10, 20,000-foot overview. in terms of the functionality, he was legitimately caught off guard? >> well, i assured him that we were ready to go. everyone knew with a big plan that there were likely to be some big problems. no one anticipated this level of problems. >> just a second quick question. where is hhs getting the money to pay for these fixes? is it coming from other hhs accounts? have you used your transfer authority to move money from non-aca programs to pay for the

cost of implementing the president's health care program? if so, from which programs have you drawn money to help with the fix? >> well, as you know, congressman, it's been two years since we've had a budget at hhs. we also have not had an implementation budget authorized by the congress. each of those years we have used not only resources internally but i do have legal transfer authority that i've used and a nonrecurring expense fund. we'll get you all the details of that report. >> great. thank you. so the answer is yes. >> there is money that is specifically designed for either outreach and education, so the health centers have hired education and outreach people as part of their outreach for health personnel. i would say it's definitely related to get expanded health care.

>> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, secretary, for being here. my understanding is that a lot of the companies, insurers that have been offering plans in the individual market, the ones who are sending out these notices, are actually repositioning themselves in the health insurance exchange to offer alternative plans. is that -- >> that's true. >> is that correct? >> yes. >> in addition to those insurers who have been in the individual market, you now have a lot of other companies and insurers providing plans in the health insurance market. >> that is true. >> so the way i look at this, i went to buy oriole tickets a while back when the season was still underway. i was standing in line, and i got up to the ticket window and they closed the window. but i didn't have to go home because they opened another window a few feet away. so essentially what's happening is people are coming up on the

renewal period. they're getting up to the window of the individual market. they're being told, well, that window is closed, but if you go right down the line here, there's another window that's open. by the way, when you get there, you'll get better coverage, potentially at reduced premiums. if you go down to window three, there's some subsidies that may also be available to you. so this notion that people are being turned away from an affordable product that provides good, quality care is preposterous. in fact, they're being steered to a place where they can get good, quality coverage, in many instances much better than the coverage they had before at an affordable rate that's supported by the subsidies that can be available to many, many people. this is what's so promising about the affordable care act. i think it's important for people to understand that window

is not being shut. they're being steered some place elsewhere they can get a good opportunity. >> and i think the first option for those companies is to say, we'd like to keep you here, and here are the plans we're offering. but to be fair, customers will now have an opportunity to look across a landscape, which they couldn't before. they will have entry into those other windows which many of them didn't have before with a pre-existing condition. as you say, about 50% of this market will have financial help in purchasing health insurance, which none of them had before. >> gentleman's time is expired. mr. griffith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. early in your testimony here today, you said a couple times plans we enjoy but then as you noticed with mr. gardner's eloquent testimony, that we're not going to be in the same plan you're in after january 1. i was one of those who thought it was a good idea as a part of a proposal that was floating around the halls here in congress that the president and the cabinet secretaries ought to

also be in the marketplace and not have a special federal plan that you all have after january 1, but we will not. the president, while that was being discussed, issued a veto threat. did you discuss the veto threat with the president before he made it? have you discussed it with him since then? yes or no. >> no. >> relating back to the contractors involved in this, cgi told us that the spanish website was ready to go, that they thought everything was ready just as they did with the regular site. obviously that didn't prove out. but they were told not to implement it. likewise, the shop and browse section was ready to go. do you think that they were misleading this committee when they made those comments? >> i think what they believed is that that product, independent of the entire operational site, was ready and tested. a determination was made. i was involved with the spanish website and medicaid transfers to say, let's minimize the risk for the whole site.

let's -- >> but that raises the next question up. one of the other contractors, qssi, i believe it was, indicated to us that part of the problem was that once you took away the ability to browse, everybody had to go through the business of setting up an account, and you stopped -- or cmms stopped one of the browsing options as well and that actually contributed to the log jam and contributed to the problems. so is he correct on that, that not allowing people just to look without having to sign up, wouldn't that have made it easier for the american people? >> in hindsight, i think that probably would have been advantageous. i can tell you that the reason the decision was made going forward was to minimize risk. that didn't work so well. but adding additional features that didn't involve people actually wanting to get to what they would independently pay and what they would qualify for and what the plans were seemed to be things that could be added down the road. it was wrong. >> gentleman's time is expired.

>> thank you, madam secretary, for testifying today. over the week, the united states wrote the following, project managers at department of health and human services assured the white house that any remaining problems could be worked out once the website went live. but other senior officials predict serious trouble and advised delaying the rollout. can you confirm if this is true? did any senior department official predict serious problems and did any senior department official advise delaying the rollout of the exchanges or parts of the exchanges on october 1st? >> i can tole you that no senior official reporting to me ever advised me that we should delay. you heard from the contractors on the 24th that none of them advised a delay. we have testing that did not advise a delay. so not to my knowledge. >> did they indicate to you there were serious problems? >> they indicated to me that we

would always have risk because this system is brand new and no one has operated a system like this before to any degree. we always knew that there would be the possibility that some things would go wrong. no one indicated this could possibly go this wrong. >> can you name some of these officials that gave you that advice that there were serious problems? >> again, we had a series of meetings with teams from cms. i was always advised that there's always a risk with a new product and a new site. but never suggested that we delay the launch of october 1st nor did our contracting partners ever suggest that to us. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. johnson. >> thank you very being here with us today. cms was the integrator of the website prior to and leading up to the 1 october rollout, correct? >> that's correct. >> you testified that you've now hired an outside company to

serve as the integrator. >> one of our contractors is taking on an additional role, qssi, who built the hub. >> okay. this is the same company that told our committee last week that they were not only the developer of the hub and the pipeline but also an independent tester of the system. you've acknowledged in your testimony today that inadequate testing played a significant role in this failed launch. so aren't you concerned that qssi has lost its ability to be an objective, independent arbitrator in addressing the problems that plague the system now? they're part of the tester, part of the goper, part of the problem. >> no, i haven't lost my confidence in them. i think the testing that they did is validating the pieces of the equipment, what we've said since the launch is we did not do adequate end-to-end testing. that was not the qssi responsibility. >> all right. and in this new role as integrator, are you going to be paying qssi more than they were to be paid under their original

contract? i would expect with this expanded role -- >> that discussion is underway in terms of what the role will entail, what the outlines are, yes, sir. >> okay. hard-working american taxpayers have already paid for this implementation once. do you think it's fair to ask taxpayers to pay more so that qssi can now attempt to do something that administrator tavenner and her team were unable to do right the first time? >> i think the american taxpayers expect us to get the site up and running. >> i'm certain they did. they expected it the first time. >> i understand. so did i. we have not expended the funds that have been encumbered for the contracts. we will monitor every dime we spend from here on in and reaudit things that are going forward. >> well, with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. mr. long. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, secretary, for being here today.

given your testimony, earlier today you said that i'm responsible for the implementation of the affordable care act. i've heard you refer to yourself as the point person for the rollout, the architect of implementing affordable care act. so you are kind of the president's point person, are you not, for this rollout? >> yes, sir. >> i -- earlier you were asked -- and there's a lot of things striking about the rollout of this and about the affordable care act altogether. but the thing that's most striking to me is when we have the point person for the rollout here and you're not going into the exchange -- now, i've heard you say, and you got some advice from the folks behind you, but i'm asking you today, can you tell the american public if your advisers behind you, if they happened to give you wrong information, if it is possible for you to go into the exchange like all these millions of americans that are going to the exchanges, will you commit to

forego your government insurance plan that you're on now and join us in the pool? come on in. the water is fine. all the congressmen, all of our staff have to go into the exchanges. we have to go into the d.c. exchanges. i will say that i tried to get on the website. i was successful during the hearing earlier. i got to the d.c. exchange, which is where i have to buy from. i got partway through. when i got to the point to enter my social security number, i could not bring myself to do that. from what i've heard from others about the security, will you tell -- if your advisers are wrong, and it is possible for you -- and i'm not saying it is. if it's possible for you to forego your government plan, will you tell the american public, that, yes, i will go into the exchanges next year like everyone else. >> sir, the way the law is written -- >> it's a yes or no. let's say that you're wrong on that. yes or no. if you're wrong -- >> i don't want to give misinformation to the american public. >> you what? >> i don't want to give misinformation.

>> i want you to go home and research it. if you're wrong, will you go into the exchanges? >> if i'm wrong -- >> if you can, will you? that's a yes or no. if you can, will you? >> i'll take a look at it. i don't have any idea. >> that's not an answer. that's not a yes or no. >> gentleman's time has expired. >> you're the architect of the whole program and you won't go into it with the rest of the american public. >> i didn't say that. it's illegal for me -- >> if it's not illegal, will you go in? come on in, the water's fine. >> gentleman's time has expired. >> i have a unanimous consent request. i'd like -- madam secretary, i'd like you to answer for the record, if you were able to do what the gentleman just suggested or follow the recommendation of cory gardner, our colleague from colorado and went in to buy an individual policy, would you be able to find one that would protect you from cheap shots, or do you think that has to be mandated

for coverage? i leave the record open for your response. >> we'll wait for that response to come back. >> i would gladly join the exchange if i didn't have affordable coverage in my workplace. i would gladly join it. the d.c. market is an independent state-based market, even though d.c. is not a state. we do not run the d.c. market in the federal marketplace. >> gentle lady from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a couple of questions. thank you for being with us today, madam secretary. i'd like to go to the issue that has been raised by my colleagues on the left here aboutccurate information. number one, i've heard the issue of medicare part d brought up many, many times. although, my colleagues all voted no against it initially, now they're extolling the virtues of medicare part d. is medicare part d a mandate or voluntary? >> it is voluntary. >> it is a voluntary program. >> yes.

>> that's the first accurate piece of information i would like to get. you know, we're actually forcing millions of americans to go to find a health care premium in some way, whether it's to go to the exchange or whether they are to be insured. many of my constituents are reaching out to me, those with individual policies, and are saying to me that my rates are going up 400%, my rates are going up 127%. these are my constituents. now, you know, we're talking about open enrollment, but it's forcing the issue, is it not? that if an american does not have health care coverage, they are essentially breaking the law, is that not correct? >> if someone can afford coverage and has that option and chooses not to buy coverage, they will pay a fee on their -- >> and it is a law, so therefore they are breaking the law.

okay. you also brought up the issue when you were in kansas that you fought against discriminatory issues. now, as far as the essential health benefits, correct me if i'm wrong, do men not have to buy maternity coverage? >> policies will cover maternity coverage for the young and healthy -- >> including men. >> under 30-year-olds will have a choice also of a catastrophic plan, which has no maternity coverage. >> the catastrophic. but the men are required to purchase maternity. >> an insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not. >> and that is why the health care premiums are increasing this high because we're forcing them to buy things that they will never need. thank you, madam chairman. >> the individual policies cover families. men often do need maternity coverage for their spouses and for their families, yes. >> single male age 32 does not

need maternity coverage. to the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby? >> gentle lady's time has exp e expired. >> thank you. you know, although we were told repeatedly that if uh you liked your health insurance plan, you'd be able to keep it, we're now being told by the government they have determined many existing plans to be lousy, subpar. in reality, this law is becoming quickly less about helping americans purchase affordable coverage and more about compelling millions of americans into a struggling medicaid program. in my home state of washington, 90% of enrollees will be in medicaid. 16,000 of them coming into a program that they were already eligible for. colorado, 89%. kentucky, two-thirds.

maryland, 97%. and these are states that are already struggling with their budge budgets, wondering how they're going to cover medicaid. isn't it true that in states like washington, they're going to have new, unexpected costs associated with a dramatic influx into medicaid. >> well, congresswoman, the medicaid expansion provision on the affordable care act is -- >> are states going to face new costs? >> the federal government pays 100% of the costs of newly ensured for the first three years and gradually reduces -- >> these are existing -- these were people already eligible. >> existing people -- >> and we know two out of three doctors don't accept new medicaid patients. we know that current provider rates are going to drop at the end of 2014. so isn't it true that existing medicare -- medicaid enrollees are going to further compete for scarce resources in these

states. >> if the citizens of washington who are signing up were eligible for medicaid, they certainly will be entitled to enroll in medicaid now. the newly insured will be -- >> i'm concerned that the most vulnerable in this country are going to lack access to the care that they think they're going to receive. i know time is short. >> i think that's absolutely true. states that are choosing not to expand medicaid, it's particularly dire. >> it's existing medicaid. finally, i just wanted to inform the secretary, you told us several hours ago when the hearing started that the website was down. if you look at the screen several hours later, healthcare.gov is still down. you promised this system would be ready on october 1st. you're clearly wrong. so before i leave you today, i would just impress upon you, this is more than a broken website. this is a broken law. millions of americans are getting notices their plans are being canceled.

i yield back my time. >> gentle lady's time is expired. i just -- i would do a couple things here. first, i'm going to ask unanimous consent that the written opening statements for any member on the committee be introduced into the record. without objection, the documents will be there. i would also ask unanimous consent to put the document binder and other documents presented to the secretary into the record without objection. so ordered. let me say in conclusion, we do look forward to having you back in december to get an update on where we are. we'll work with your schedule to find a right time and date early that week. i want you to know we're going to want real numbers. you'll have them by then, is that right, in terms of the signup? >> that's correct, sir. we'll have them by mid-november. >> we look forward to getting those done.

we appreciate -- we really do appreciate your time this morning to take questions. i apologize to all the members who we had to shorten the time, but those things it happen when we have this much interest. we look forward to continuing to get an update and look for your continued work. >> mr. chairman? >> yes. >> from our side of the isle,ai we want to work with you. i hope on the other side of the aisle, they would take that same approach. let's do something constructive, not just negative attacks against a bill that i think is going to be a god send for millions of americans. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> thank you. hearing is adjourned. >> you have been watching health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius testify before the house energy and commerce committee. president obama meanwhile is heading to boston today to offer a reboot of obama care on the hallowed ground where in 2006 mitt romney flanked by ted kennedy signed into law the program that would one day become obama care.

thanks to that law, 97% of massachusetts residents have health care. "the boston globe" reports the, quote, besieged president, will highlight the bipartisan nature of the massachusetts overhaul and emphasize that it took many months to sign up residents. before president obama arrives, his top luntd, hhs secretary, kathleen sebelius, apologized for the problems that have thus far bedeviled the aca rollout. >> let me say directly to these americans, you deserve better. i apologize. i'm accountable to you for fixing these problems. and i'm committed to earning your confidence back by fixing the site. >> in a move that surprised exactly no one, republicans grilled the secretary about so-called website glitches and her boss' repeated assurance that everyone who liked their current plan could keep it. >> well, secretary, while you're from kansas, we're not in kansas anymore. some might say that we are actually in the wizard of oz

land. >> who made the -- the problem with this whole debate is y'all won't tell us who made the decision. >> amazon would never do this. pro-flowers would never do this. kayak would never do this. >> some people like to drive a ford, not a ferrari. some people like to drink out of a red solo cup and not a crystal stem. you're taking away their choice. >> but this time democrats on the committee were not going to take the criticism lying down. >> i don't know how you keep your cool, madam secretary, with this continuous effort on the part of the gop to sabotage the aca, to scare people. >> we've had a litany of objections from the republicans about the affordable care act, which has driven them to such a frenzy they even closed the government. >> i want to really congratulate my republican pals for being absolutely 1,000% consistent. you love what's wrong with the website and you detest what's

working. >> indeed, democrats are eager to put the spotlight on the gop. in just a few hours, president obama is expected to share the limelight with the most recent republican nominee for president, mitt romney. needless to say, reminding the country of his significant contribution to the development of obama care is not something governor romney is exactly excited about. in a statement released just hours ago, romney went to great and some would say almost painful lengths to distance himself from the thing his own party hates most in the world. in the years since the massachusetts health care law went into effect, nothing has changed my view that a plan crafted to fit the unique circumstances of a single state should not be grafted on to the entire country. health reform is best crafted by states with bipartisan support and input from its employers, as we did, without raising taxes and by carefully phasing it in to avoid the type of disruptions we are seeing nationally. joining me today, democratic strategist and principal at the

raven group, jamal simmons. random house executive, john meachem. and senior staff writer at salon, brian boitler. also joining us, white house correspondent peter alexander. peter, let's talk about what has just happened. 3 1/2 hours of what i will say is exhaustive testimony from kathleen sebelius, defending the president, defending the affordable care act. the president is going to sort of follow that up later today, this afternoon. how concerned is the white house at this point? republicans seem to have moved sort of -- they have a hybrid strategy of attacking both the website and the quote/unquote president's failed promises that everybody could keep their health care. from 1600 pennsylvania avenue, what's the view? >> i think there's definitely frustration. there's obviously concern, as you have conversations with white house officials privately. they hope this can have a better

context. they want this to be explained. because the website is down and there's little they can do to help provide the exact information for those americans who say their plans are being canceled or changed, they want to focus on the small number of people who are being impacted that way. they make the point that 80% of americans obviously are affected by -- have government plans or plans through their employer. it's only the 5%, about 12 million americans, that they note who are among those who buy insurance privately that may have these issues. the problem is right now that there's a credibility gap for this white house because not just what the president said, not once, but repeatedly saying if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. for a lot more of those people, it's not about the plan so much as it is about their doctors. on those notices, it specifically says you may not be able to keep your doctor. that's where the real personal relationship exists for folks. that's what the white house is trying to overcome right now. >> peter, one quick question before we let you go. in terms of kathleen sebelius, there have been a lot of republican calls for someone, anyone to get fired, but her name has been banded about.

it seems and sounds like from democrats, at least, and from administration officials she's not going anywhere. first of all, another confirmation process is almost unthinkable. and president obama isn't the kind of guy that fires staff when they are in the hot seat. what is your reporting telling you? >> yeah, it doesn't seem like this white house has any intention, certainly the president has no intention to get rid of kathleen sebelius. they've repeatedly said to us he has full confidence in her, even if he's extremely frustrated and upset about the way this rollout has gone to this point so far. the challenge for the white house right now is they're waiting until mid-november before they provide what kathleen sebelius described as reliable enrollment numbers. now there are more deadlines ahead they've got to meet. that number in mid-november, we're all going to focus on it. even today as they make the point that in boston, in massachusetts, it was only 123 people that signed up in the first month. 20% of all signups in commonwealth care in massachusetts health coverage plans signed up in the last two months. we're going to focus on the deadline, that small number we'll likely hear in

mid-november. again, on that small window of time from december 1st to december 15th, for those people who are losing plans or are being forced to change their plans, that's the small window where they have to make that change in order to have coverage. >> nbc's peter alexander. thank you, as always, for your time, my friend. my pals in new york, we just sat through a ruckus. i don't know if that's the word to use. >> whatever. >> which was the best response of this morning. john, let's talk about something peter just brought up, which is the credibility issue. the president clearly said one thing and actually maybe meant another or another thing is happening. which is no one is going to lose their insurance. people are losing their insurance. but there is an additional sort of important set of facts, which is the insurance they had and may be losing was kind of really bad to begin with. >> but that's different. >> right, it is different. i guess from your vantage point,

how far -- is that a bridge too far to ask the american public to understand that, yes, what he was saying was inaccurate but ultimately it is all in service of better health care? >> it's not a bridge too far if that had been the explanation. if there had been a sustained public education campaign about this, beginning by the way when the bill was being crafted. >> yes. >> i would argue it is the singular signature domestic achievement. it's also really the signature communications failure of the administration. people still don't know what's in the damn thing. now all we know is it doesn't work. >> that's what we're being told. and the messaging around it not working has been incredibly powerful and very unified. >> and we have seen again and again in american politics whenever there has been legislation or attempts to reform social attitudes, you have to have a sustained argument and make it again and again and again because the forces that are against forward motion are so entrenched. it's easier to say no than to

say yes. >> you know, there are some important factoids that have come up, brian, in terms of pre-existing -- not pre-existing conditions but this kind of catastrophic coverage that 15 to 16 million americans may have. in "the washington post," sara cliff has done great reporting. one study found that 17% of individual market subscribers, these are the kind of folks with the catastrophic coverage plans, purchase the same plan for two straight years or longer. there should be an only there. only 17% of those people with those kinds of plans purchase it again. it is very common for people to switch plans year to year. >> not only is there a lot of trim, but a lot of the plans being phased out now -- i mean, they didn't actually do what insurance is supposed to do. they didn't actually protect people from bankruptcy or from being kicked off of their plans at the end of their contract. and that system will go away. i agree the president, instead of saying if you like your plan,

you should keep it, should have said something like, for the overwhelming majority of people, if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. and i hope that he says that today so we can get at the real reality, which is right now, there are things you can do to make things betteren if anywhere who is experiencing rate shock or who is having their plan rescinded. the fact is that the gop doesn't want to do any of those things unless it kicks a tent pole out from under the entire system. and getting clarity on that point would help the debate along a little more. >> jamal, democratic strategist, the president is going to be in massachusetts, presumably to highlight the time when republicans and democrats stood on stage together and passed bills, the bipartisan support that there existed for health insurance reform or health care reform. what does he need to do? a lot of this, as john points out, is a communications and messaging strategy. they seem incredibly buffeted by the latest scandal. this is a week to week crisis

management situation that we have at the white house. >> i think the president will go to massachusetts, he will make a solid case, i'm sure. there was a question in the testimony today about whether or not who is ultimately responsible. was it kathleen sebelius or the president. i'm sure the president is going to take ultimate responsibility. he has to. after that, he has to treat this like he's treated some other crises we've seen in the past with storms. get somebody out front whose job it is. do regular updates on this. maybe there are some people outside the administration that can bring someone in to help steady the ship. but give regular updates. let people know what's going on. the entire system seems to be okay. it's just the website is screwy. >> but that is a powerful narrative, as is that old tape of president obama in 2009 saying with nancy pelosi holding the speaker's gavel, you're not going to lose your plan.

>> they have a tortured response on think progress about how at the moment of the passage, anybody that had health care, it would last, anybody who changed their plans in the last two years, it's a little dodgier. they got to do better. >> mixed messaging is a problem, john. >> i've said this before, so at the risk of repeating myself -- >> no, please. we like a chorus and refrain. >> this could be the progressive equivalent of the agriculture department recommendation that the reagan administration declare ketchup a vegetable because it's a straightforward, simple, easily grasped fact. the government tried to do something, and they couldn't even make the website work. we're going to be living with the consequences of this for years to come. >> it is worth saying that the state exchanges are working. it's not just that everything sort of affiliated with this is working. poor people, medicaid expansion, that's something that's a practical, good thing and understandable, tangible thing.

>> but your job is ssymbolism. this is a powerful symbol. it's a problem for those of us in the public sector. >> we are going to talk more about this and put this in the context of thomas jefferson, american president, founder, framer, flexible. jefferson can be described many ways, and we'll discuss power politics in the air of jefferson and john meachem's latest book. that's next. [ male announcer ] if you can clear a crowd but not your nasal congestion, you may be muddling through allergies. try zyrtec-d®. powerful relief of nasal congestion and other allergy symptoms -- all in one pill. zyrtec-d®. at the pharmacy counter. thood thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses.

the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call today to request a free decision guide. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. o0 c1 i save time, money,st, and i avoid frustration. you'll find reviews on home repair to healthcare,

written by people just like you. find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust.

john meachem's "new york times" best seller "thomas jefferson: the art of power" recounts the founding father as he himself may have. in pursuit of his ends,

jefferson sought, acquired, and wielded power. our greatest leaders are neither dreamers nor dictators. they are, like jefferson, those who articulate national aspirations yet master the mechanics of influence and know when to depart from dogma. as we go through this, as we live through this highly rank rous, partisan time, do you think our leaders still understand that? i would ask you in specific the republican party, which seems to be incredibly dogmatic right now. >> that's where -- that's the most unjeffersonian crew. there is the sense among some republicans that the perfect is, in fact, the enemy of the good. >> yeah. >> and that's -- we've never really prospered, broadly, politically in our history when we've been absolutely committed to one single thing. because the country is so diverse, because the republic is so big, it was always a protection against extremism and it was also always this

incredibly diverse conflict of interest. we were always going to have partisanship. we were always going to be division. jefferson talked about the questions of what are the interests of the many are the interests of the few should predominate in the interest of human affairs. >> look at that recall. >> all the way back. so it's monetizing dork-dom. but he knew that. the question is whether partisanship is of a different degree or of a different kind. right now i think it's an extreme degree. what's happened, which jefferson would not have approved of in his better moments, was it's reflexive. that is, you say something, so i disagree and you foreclose the possibility of reason to take on board what you say and decide whether it's good or bad. >> by the way, brian, when we talk about leadership, i think that jefferson -- i mean, i don't know. obviously people are going to say i'm biased here, but president obama is very much someone who lives in the

crosshairs between being a sort of philosopher and an idealist and a pragmatist and i think happens to be president at a time where his partners on the other side of the aisle are very much behold on to sort of reckless, dogmatic mentality that makes the negotiations nearly impossible. >> i think that he came into power at a very strange time. i think the president has always been a polarizing figure. probably for as long as the republic. president obama was elected at the nater of the economy and at a time when the parties had sorted. when the most liberal republican was more conservative than the most conservative democrat. so there was really no incentive for almost anybody in the republican party to ever want to partner up with him, with the exception of you still see a few house republicans have incentive to work with him on immigration reform, but not health care. there's no dollar for any of those republicans in doing that. i think it was a confluence of all of that stuff that's made this era what it is, the obama era what it is. >> yet, jamal, some people on

the left would say we need to be less conciliatory, less in search of a bargain with these people who have moved the goalpost so far to the right. my worry is that we sort of end up with parties -- i mean, i really do think the democratic party has come much further to the center. what the implications post-obama? >> i don't know. i think everyone is firmly ensconced in their camps. you can't take out the demographics. you have 30 years of wage stagnation. at the same time, you have this incredible demographic shift taking place in the country. you've got all the guysic l lik i'm from michigan, the auto worker, big buffy guys. >> you're a big, buffy guy. >> but you have all these folks caught in the middle. they don't know what to do. we may have reforms ourselves too much. we don't have earmarks. >> calling for a return to earmarks. >> people used to be able to horse trade. we made horse trade a bad idea. we have to get back to some of

that, i think. >> jefferson it's best to give as well as take in a system like ours. >> i love when you quote jefferson. i know you sang us jonas brothers lyrics earlier today. the book is "thomas jefferson: the art of power." as someone who's held the paperback and hardback, i prefer the paperback. >> it's better for your cardio and strength. >> i do weight lift with it. it's not a light read, but it's a substantive read. thank you, as always, for your patience and insight. that's all for now. see you back here tomorrow at noon eastern. andre"andrea mitchell reports" coming up next. today at the concert,

your husband left his cell phone on.

and you're not necessarily proud of that. but tonight, he made the pizza. ...with johnsonville italian sausage. the premium cuts of pork and perfect blend of herbs and spices gave every bite even more flavor. and everyone loved it. and you're definitely proud of that. johnsonville. served with pride since 1945. thto fight chronic. osteoarthritis pain. to fight chronic low back pain. to take action. to take the next step. today, you will know you did something for your pain. cymbalta can help. cymbalta is a pain reliever fda-approved to manage chronic musculoskeletal pain. one non-narcotic pill a day, every day, can help reduce this pain. tell your doctor right away if your mood worsens, you have unusual changes in mood or behavior or thoughts of suicide. anti-depressants can increase these in children, teens, and young adults. cymbalta is not for children under 18. people taking maois, linezolid or thioridazine or with uncontrolled glaucoma should not take cymbalta.